acarol

Hey namdube, The first years are trying something different for the first week this year than last year. You'll have some basic orientation, some community-building teacher training, and spend one day observing in the classroom where you will eventually have your one month placement in November. Once classes start, you'll have them 9-12 and 1-4, Monday-Thursday. Sometimes you'll have Friday off and sometimes you'll have to come to campus for special conferences that cover topical issues such as Environmental Education. The classes themselves always have a break midway through the 3 hour time slot. The profs provide lots of handouts, slides, notes, etc, and you will take a variety of handwritten or computer notes as well. All of the classes in first year have hands-on components, since they're more about the professionalization aspect (where second year is more graduate / research style). This means you'll take all your "curriculum" courses: social sciences, literacy, math, science, etc. You'll also take courses in assessment policy and practices, in practitioner research, and in fundamentals of teaching. You'll also take a course in your teachable alongside students from the BEd program. I don't know if you've already signed up for the mentorship program, but you should! First years who sign up are placed in small groups with a few second year students. The small mentorship group meets a few times a month and your second year mentors are available to answer emails, meet for coffee -- your mentors are there to support you throughout your first year, basically. I highly recommend participating in that. Hope you're excited to start. See you next week!

I know it's a really frustrating experience. I'm in the process of completing my second masters degree and applying for PhD programs, so this is my third time writing SOPs and I'm still unsure of myself! I think avoiding personal stories in the academic SOP is pretty standard, though. Otherwise, write it how it feels right to you and just be sure to have a few people you really trust (LOR writer, current profs, etc) read over it before submitting. They'll be able to confirm more holistically whether the choices you make work in the context of your SOP. If you have, say, 1500 words for your academic SOP, then I do think it makes sense to mention the teaching, conference, and research experiences that have specifically brought you to your project for the PhD. When I applied to my current masters program, I proposed to study media curriculum in middle schools, so I did explain how my teaching experiences (with that specific age group) and my prior MA research (in media studies) brought me to the juncture of applying to this program, wanting to do this research, etc. I didn't bring up prior research experiences that were totally unrelated, though, except perhaps in passing. For example (off the top of my head), "Of the three research assistantships I held during my MA, the one working with Dr. so-and-so shaped my interest in media curriculum the most. By conducting a literature review on current media pedagogy theory and interviewing young social media users, I refined my research focus to xyz. Going forward with doctoral studies at Y University, I want to take this focus in x direction." etc etc. As for the personal statement, that is the place to write about your identity markers and life experiences! Showcase your personality and include personal stories there, for sure. I've never had the chance to write one of those, so I can't be more specific than that, unfortunately. Good luck! You're giving yourself a good head start so I'm sure your SOP will turn out well.

While I think it's true that conferences, publications, and teaching experience are tied to research experience, these things are already listed on your CV, which (in my experience, at least) all schools request or accept in addition to your SOP. Speaking to any of these at length thus ends up being redundant, since it's information they'll already have access to elsewhere in your application. In this case, your SOP also ends up being more past-focused as opposed to forward-looking. The advice I've received directly from schools is that the balance of the two should be 25% past to 75% future -- it should indeed be more about your research interests and fit than your prior research experience. I think if you are lucky to be applying to schools with longer SOP word count limits, then it's okay to mention these experiences in that 25% if they are directly relevant to the forward-looking focus and fit you're setting up for yourself in the SOP. My applications all have 500 word limits on the SOP, so I don't make mention of any conferences, publications, or teaching positions I've had. I trust the adcomm will see all of these accomplishments on my CV. Instead, most of my 500 words are about my research focus and my fit at that particular school, with perhaps a paragraph on how both of my masters thesis papers have set me up to do the work I'm proposing for the PhD.

I think opening your SOP by contextualizing your current interest in the field via certain sub-fields / theorists / works is a good way to go. It gives the adcomm an immediate understanding of what it is you want to do. When people talk about not being "catchy" or "cute" they are generally referring to a) starting with an inspirational quotation and / or b ) starting with a personal story, especially about loving your field since childhood (lots of talk about the latter here at Grad Cafe). Your opening sounds better as it doesn't ask them to search through paragraphs of BS for the relevant information (the relevant information = why you are an excellent candidate for their program). Instead of relating to past studies, though, I'd encourage you to relate it to your present interests / future focus at the university in question. And always be sure to do exactly that throughout-- bring any reference of theorists / works back to your interests and your research. The adcomm doesn't want an explanation of Foucault's The Birth of Biopolitics (to give an example from my field!); rather, if you're mentioning Foucault, they want to know how your proposed research at their university relates to his work (i.e. does it use Foucault as a mere stepping off point? maybe your work is entirely centred around Foucault? or perhaps your work speaks back against Foucault?). Remember that your purpose isn't to explain Foucault's work to the adcomm, but to give them an idea of how you got where you are and where you want to go -- with the help of their PhD program -- in light of your reference to him. In my experience, starting with a personal story is a no-no -- especially for the PhD. I agree that it comes off as a bit silly. I know some students are accepted to grad school regardless, but I think it's a risky approach. My MA and MT SOPs both started with direct reference to my research interests (writ large, which I think is okay at the masters level) and some past experiences. My PhD SOP opens with a not-too-specific-but-clearly-signals-a-subfield-and-speciality research question. The following sentences flesh that question out a bit. In those sentences, I start to tailor my SOP to each school by using keywords, movements, or scholars that reflect the research of my POI at each school. Good luck with your SOP!

I always sign "best" to my profs in the first email I send to them. In my experience, it is what most profs / TAs / etc use in their more formal emails with students. Then I wait to see how they sign off, and mirror that in future emails. If they sign their response "cheers," for example, then I will switch to that. I see it as letting the prof determine how informal the email correspondence will be without any assumptions about friendliness / informality on my part. Personally, I prefer "cheers" and I sign off that way with my own students.

It's a step forward, but it still needs work. Your SOP is still a) very past focused and b ) full of sentences that aren't really communicating anything about your fit, focus, and future. - I maintain that you should delete the Edison quotation along with the "since I was a kid" focus in the opening paragraph. I also think your first paragraph should give a clearer idea of what it is you are interested in studying in your MS. This paragraph has your only reference to your future research interests and it isn't substantial or detailed enough -- you need to convey that you know the field well and have a handle on what it is you want to study going forward. While you don't have to suggest a research topic as specific as you would for a PhD SOP, I think your motivation for going to grad school needs to be more than broadening your perception or understanding data. -The following few paragraphs, as geoDUDE! said, are still too much about what you did before grad school / what has inspired you to go to grad school. Granted, you have done a better job of integrating what you feel you've learned from these experiences. But you don't take the final step of saying why that matters toward your present interest in pursuing your MS and your future prospects in the field. You should really limit the description of these projects -- currently, you mention details about setup, results, challenges, etc. That's not important to the adcomm. What's important is demonstrating how that is relevant preparation for your MS and how your current and future goals have come out of that experience. If you want to give the adcomm a sentence or two of detail about project specifics, you should do that in your CV. Think of it like proving a thesis statement in an essay. Every time you write something in your SOP, ask yourself "so what?" -- why does this point matter in the context of your argument? In this case, your argument is that you are an excellent candidate for the MS program. Every single point you make must contribute to that argument. If a point doesn't further that argument, either contextualize it so that it does or remove it altogether. -You still need to edit for flowery language / extraneous sentences. You could delete the entire first four sentences of the final paragraph, as they either make obvious statements (e.g. computer engineers must adapt to new technologies) or are not conveying anything meaningful about your goals in pursuing a MS at this school (e.g. you don't have an ego problem). Use the extra word count space you get as a result of deleting those sentences to write more about your research interests, your fit at this school, etc. -When you mention Professor Roth, be explicit as you can about which of his research interests intersect with yours. This information is widely available -- it took me less than 30 seconds on Google to find his faculty profile, including a detailed description of his research. You should include at least one thing he studies that you're interested in, and why it interests you / how it intersects with your research goals. Maybe what's best at this juncture is to take a few days away from this draft. You can use that time to think about what your SOP needs to accomplish, to research the department a bit more, to think about your reasons for pursuing the MS. Then, come back with fresh eyes and edit. SOPs are difficult to write and taking your time to get through them is the best way to go! *As an aside, I would add that, if you can, you should edit this post to remove identifying details (professor names, lab names). It's in your best interest to be as anonymous as possible when posting SOPs before the admissions process is over.

Basically, what fuzzylogician said. Also: -Remove the Edison quotation, no matter what you end up writing in your first paragraph. It tells the adcomm nothing about your research interests, experience, or fit with the school. And it will not set you apart positively from other applicants. -Try to remember you have a limited word count. Your SOP has lots of extraneous sentences that should be replaced with information about your research focus and your fit within the school. For example, "I earnestly hope that you will review my application favorably and grant me admission." or "Owing to these credentials I got admission into one of the most elite colleges in XYZ, one of the top 4 colleges in our state and top 20 private universities in our country." The first, because you can safely assume that all applicants hope for a favourable review / to be granted admission, so you're not telling the adcomm anything they don't already know. The second, because you use 30+ words to say "I attended School X" -- if the school is ranked so highly, the adcomm will recognize that it's elite without your saying so. Edit those sentences out and / or down and you will have more space for SOP-relevant information. -As fuzzylogician says re: scope, every thing you mention -- all research, job experience, courses, etc -- should fit within an argument about why you should do your graduate studies at School Y. Don't leave anything hanging there without explaining its relevance to your wanting to pursue a PhD at School Y. For example, if you write a sentence stating that you worked on ABC project, the next sentence should connect that work to your current research focus and, by extension, your future graduate studies. -Re: fit. You should research each department you're applying to so you can mention specific faculty members, labs and/or research projects, research methods, etc, by name. Instead of just saying "state of the art laboratories," mention the names of specific labs, their affiliate profs, and projects that are currently being done that would help support you in your research. You also want to state outright why that specific department is right for your graduate work. For example, "I want to attend School Y because DEF research lab's current work on Z project would support my focus on W. Also, Professor so-and-so's research in (insert specific topic prof works on or title of article / book / research project here) dovetails with mine in such-and-such ways." Don't mean to be harsh -- just trying to help!

I think you need to be careful about addressing it in your SOP, as, in my experience, the SOP should avoid mention of any "negative" aspects of your application. If you can frame the year off as part of your larger narrative toward research / your PhD, then it could work. It would really depend on your wording and framing of it, though. Certainly no need to supply details about your mental health and such. Imho, this is the kind of issue that would be best addressed by one of your letter writers who a) has unlimited space to write about you, as opposed to your limited SOP space, and b ) can speak positively to how your grades improved, how your recent work is most reflective of your academic potential, how serious and driven you are upon your return -- all from a faculty / supervisory perspective.

Hi chattynatty and whitelotus -- have you already had your interviews?

Congrats to all of you who have been accepted! I don't know if any of you are still reading this thread, but just wanted to drop in and say that I'm a second year M.T. student (J/I cohort) and would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the program. I look forward to meeting you all at our welcome day in the fall! **Just a note about interview and application "fairness" that some of you have been debating here. It's too bad that some of you are bitter about your rejections (or about being accepted to a stream that wasn't your preference), but it's important to remember that the program is selective, the applicants who get to the interview stage are all qualified (seriously -- everyone has been either a classroom teaching assistant, a summer camp counsellor, a TA, or an ESL teacher abroad, etc -- those are the bare minimum for acceptance), and thinking that you've aced the interview isn't the same as your interviewers thinking you did (i.e. their thinking you showed how great a fit you would as a teacher candidate/grad student in the M.T.). I can tell you based on my cohort (and knowing the P/J and I/S cohorts fairly well, across both first and second year) that the adcomm does a great job of putting together stellar student cohorts ever year. Just remember that all of the interviewers have themselves been teachers, vice-principals, principals, etc, in the formal schooling system, and that they are currently teacher educators at a top education faculty -- you have to trust that they know how to spot a strong teacher candidate for this specific program when they interact with one, and that their decision has nothing to do with whether you are blonde or brunette. I would suggest either being appreciative if you've been accepted to a stream or focusing your energy on reapplying next year with an even stronger argument for why you're a great fit for the program.

I wouldn't worry too much about not having a sociology prof as a referee (especially since you can't change that now!). I've also switched between fields a few times (BA English and polisci, MA English, MEd) and haven't encountered any issues. As long as you look for programs with the right fit for your research (sociology departments with strong political focus, and definitely apply to polisci departments with a sociological focus), then you'll be fine. In my experience, the social sciences are especially interdisciplinary and switching fields isn't rare. Many graduates from my current education program go on to complete PhDs in sociology or anthropology, for example, as it's common to find "sociology of education" and "anthropology of education" as a faculty research interest. All of their LORs are from education faculty members and it hasn't been a problem. You should ask your referees (especially your honours thesis supervisor) to speak to your research experience and strengths in a way that highlights your ability to do interdisciplinary work. Research methods tend to be similar / applicable across the social sciences (imo, at least), so if you have experience with ethnography, historiography, statistical analysis, policy analysis, narrative approaches, etc, then having your references speak to that will work for you regardless of whether the program is technically political science or sociology -- especially if you'll be using similar methods in your PhD research. I also think that your supervisor should speak to how your research was sociological in nature, and how you were successful at working within political sociology for your honours thesis. Good luck!

I, too, am applying for a PhD in English this coming fall. I have my M.A. in English and the advice I received while completing it was to choose courses with my subfield / future PhD research in mind -- that way, you make a strong argument for your preparation in the field. At this juncture, if your B.A. and M.A. have already given you a well-rounded foundation, it would be the most advantageous to gain research experience and work on papers in your subfield. Since you said you have no intention of pursuing linguistics, is the U.S. ethnic and religious minorities course relevant to your future studies in any way? If none of them are all that related, then you could also try to figure out what course / instructor would allow you to bring in some of your own research interests anyway (in the context of the final paper, for example). I found that my M.A. profs were fairly flexible in that regard.

I've heard this advice as well. I'll be doing this for my MA and MEd degrees, since there's so little coursework and therefore few papers to list, but can't imagine doing it for undergrad. I say the latter mostly because a) I can't remember all the papers I wrote and a laptop crash early in my undergrad has left me without a comprehensive list and b ) I don't think adcomms care about my cruddy Intro to Poetics paper from my first year of undergrad -- I don't see how that would help my case! I agree with Zapster -- list titles from your subfield specifically, and anything that will boost your argument that you're a good fit for the specific program and for your proposed project. I would only list coursework if your transcript doesn't clearly do so already, otherwise it will be redundant. If you list it, one separate page (perhaps as the last page of your CV) is usually the way to go. One of the universities I'm applying to has asked for it to be prepared as a list according to fields. I imagine I'll probably also list the main theorists and thrust of each class under the title.

Thank you for the advice -- very helpful. This is what I had been leaning toward as well. To answer your question: I completed my MA in 2011, took one year off, and began my two-year MEd. So, quite recent. My MA profs are the ones who provided my LORs for my current program, so I imagine the same ones would be happy to do so again for the PhD. What happens with education PhDs that only need 2 letters (and the online system prevents additional ones)? Do you think I should still send one from each program, or both from education profs?

Hi all, Long time lurker, new member. I'm trying to get ahead in preparing for Fall 2014 PhD applications (in Canada) and have a question about LORs. I have my MA in English and am currently completing my MEd. My research interests are interdisciplinary across both fields, which means I will be applying to 2 education programs (both at my current school) and 3 English programs. Even though the programs are in different fields, all of them have faculty whose research reflects my own. My current thesis supervisor will provide a recommendation for all of the schools, since I think that's an inevitable choice. But who else -- should I stick to a current prof at my current institution for the education programs I'm applying to here (they both need 2 letters)? Will it seem bizarre not to have any letters from my MA profs, or not so much, since it's a different field? And who else for my English programs? They all need 2 letters in addition to my supervisor's. I am thinking at least one from my MA (whose research is related to my field), but then what to do for the 3rd? Is it better to have a recent MEd prof provide one or an older, but English-specific one? Thanks!

Just curious as to why you can't apply to both, considering they are indeed in different departments?